Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence


 * — Anthøny 22:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More on accusations
I believe that the term "POV Pushing" is being used as a substitute for logic. Arguments are dismissed due to the intentions of the editor; not because of correctness. Frequently, discussions about controlled demolition or reliable sources quickly get turned into a debate into weather or not editors are POV Pushers. A good example of this is from August where I was debating the creditability of PrisonPlanet.com. The topic swiftly diverted into weather or not I'm a POV Pusher. Attempts to debate the topic at hand got me labeled a "troll". This type of behavior is indeed disruptive, as it serves as it becomes more difficult to work towards an agreement. &mdash; Selmo (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Single porpose editors and statistics
A comment about RxS statistics, clarified by WLRoss.

RxS comments: "It's clear that they are here for little more than to push conspiracy theory related content".

I don't see how an high percentages of messages on the 9/11 talk pages could be supposed to prove that an editor is "single porpose". It's not my fault if editing and discussing with people different from this particular group of editors result more simple and requires less explanations and replies. Moreover it was quite dishonest to show percentages obtained by summing up both edit on articles and talk in order to suggest a misleading representation of the statistics. Moreover it has been shown that the percentage of RxS edits on 9/11 talks is also comparable with the average of the perchentage of people he is accusing to be "single porpose". So maybe he is implying that he himself is a single porpose editor?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another not completely honest move made by RxS was to not cite other involved editors' statistics to make comparisons. Here are other involved editors' statistics (datas from here):

So "it is clear" that if % of edits in talk pages would be so conclusive to make an editor "single porpose" we would have have a lot of single porposes editors.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have 328 talk page edits and 1202 total edits since November 2007. That's 31% of my talk page edits going to 9/11-related pages during that period and 8% of my total edits. And that's only since November 2007. My previous Okiefromokla account (July 2006-Nov 2007... explained prominently on my user page) has 544 talk page edits out of 3106 total edits, none of which were on 9/11-related pages. That brings the percentage of my total 9/11 talk page usage to 12% of my talk page edits, or 102 9/11 talk page edits over 1.8 years. Since July 2006, the percentage of all my edits going to 9/11-related pages is 2% of total. Okiefromokla questions? 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't see Rx's table: the above response is for Pokipsy76. In case anyone is confused, Rx's numbers are based on mainspace/mainspace talk and mine are based on % of talk and % of total edits, which is why the percentages are different. Okiefromokla questions? 16:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now let's look at the real numbers
Same calculation formula, same source:

The edit numbers were taken from the same source (Interiot) as the one's in my evidence section and reproduced above. Total mainspace/mainspace talk and 9/11 related topics (both article and talk). I have no idea where/how Pokipsy76 arrived at his figures but they are not even close to being accurate. RxS (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They are indeed accurate, you would have obtained my table if you didn't sum up mainspace and talk. However I don't see what you could even think to achieve with these datas, there are no policies that estabilish a minimum number of different topics which an editor should be working at, and you can be a POV-pusher on 9/11 even if you edit a lot of topics.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you could explain what the 57% in my row means? You're right, there is no policy and I never claimed there was. What the numbers do show clearly is that there are editors here that are here only to promote conspiracy theory in 9/11 related articles. People are free to draw their own conclusions from there. RxS (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 57% means that 57% of your talk edits are on 9/11 related articles.
 * Another very simple explanation to the numbers is: there are editors who are particulary sensible to what they perceive as a strong non-neutrality of a set of articles which are patrolled by a group of editors which engage them in endless discussions in order to keep the POV they like best.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one explanation, many others have drawn a different one. And I'll say this, to assert that "we're" the ones engaging in endless talk page discussion is robustly, profoundly backward. I wouldn't even have a tenth of the number of talk page edits to those pages if I (and others) didn't have to keep answering the same questions, pointing out the same policies over and over. When you have a small group of people making the same assertions repeatedly and against consensus and policy it will drive up talk page edits. You know what else it does? It wastes an enormous amount of time those editors have that they could be spending elsewhere actually improving Wikipedia instead of preventing articles from being taken over by editors wanting to promote conspiracy theories. that's damaging and disruptive to Wikipedia and the main reason we're here. RxS (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it any better myself. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not fair on your side to assume your POV is right and the other ones are wrong, that you are the one respecting policies and I am the one that try to "push the POV". You can't "prove" that a given proposed edit amounts to "promoting conspiracy" Vs "giving due weight", you can just express your humble opinion and the datas don't have anything to say about this. Everybody here thinks to have been working according to policies and common sense and discussions should be made assuming good faith.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "POV" on this. And I think the numbers and editing patterns speak for themselves. RxS (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you do: your POV is that (for example) I am here to push conspiracy theories on wikipedia despite NPOV (yoy just said it above and in the project page). My POV instead is that I am just trying to work for neutrality and you are trying to prevent this.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, wikipedia editors use the acronym POV to refer to the expression of a point of view about an article's subject in articles, and often also on article Talk pages. I don't think it's helpful to extend the definition to include all opinions that an editor might hold. That's just needlessly confusing, and its logical conclusion is that any statement of opinion is "POV-pushing". Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for my inappropriate language. I just wanted to suggest more fairness and neutrality also in the descriptions of the events occurred between wikipedia editors.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong
I was very disheartened upon looking at this and the workshop page today to find distasteful personal attacks, slander, and hate-motivated arguments with no diffs or other evidence. This is not a place to get your two-cents in &mdash; if there is a true case against an editor's behavior, we must conscientiously, respectfully, and carefully make the case in civil fashion, using diffs to support any reasonable claims that are made without personal attacks.

There are good faith attempts to illuminate what has truly been disruptive or uncivil behavior by a select few editors over long periods of time that has adversely affected the way 9/11 articles function. However, it's obvious in some cases when an editor's motivation and the case being presented is not reasonable, supported by relevant diffs, or even related to 9/11 articles. For example, edit summaries like "reliable sources ... reliable fucking sources", "jesus fucking christ", "having had to deal with people like JzG", "Haemo and Rx StrangeLove behave as if they have come from the same batch of clones", and accusing editors of censorship and "suppress(ing) views" are way out of line. Okiefromokla questions? 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's amazingly hateful language. I'm assuming it will illustrate and clarify some of the issues for Arbcom. If this wasn't an Arbcom page he'd be blocked right now. RxS (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking on the bright side, no one could dispute that it certainly constitutes evidence - not of what the author intended, perhaps... Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While it was very edifying to know that I am a lying pod person who enjoys buggery, sometimes just letting people rent can be helpful. I tend to feel much better after a good rant. --Haemo (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be good form if those who have defended Ireneshusband from accusations of civility would strike their support of him. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Malicious checkuser requests"
Please note that I did not actually check anyone's edits other than Dscotese and Deminizer, and even if I did, the responsibility for running the check would have been on my shoulders, not Haemo's. Please see my clarification at Requests for checkuser/Case/Dscotese. Thatcher 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the checks were done or not I find it offensive that they were asked for and that we were regarded as "suspects" in the first place. A cursory check of user pages, writing style and edits does not even marginally support the claim. Wayne (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care what Haemo's intentions were; did asking for a check user affect the workings of the 9/11 articles? Was it even overtly uncivil? Are his demands that policy be met in any way disruptive to 9/11 articles? Has he been tendentious or disruptively uncivil in the discussions? This is not a place to take out your general feelings for an editor or point to his general conduct outside of 9/11 articles. There are other places these concerns should be brought up: not arbcom. Okiefromokla questions? 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know ... I think it's a good example of the atmosphere of mistrust. The only thing that connects the names on Haemo's "you may want to have a look" list, are the views they seem to hold on 9/11 (and even this is a bit of a stretch given the range of views ... if I were still editing, I imagine I could be added to it on Haemo's criteria). As Wayne points out, none of the signs of sock-puppetry that one normally worries about apply here. Haemo's suspicions in this case are the mirror image of the "anti-CT cabal" theory, which is also less than constructive. This is certainly not "general conduct outside 9/11 articles"; it is very much part of the issue of how Wikpedia should "deal with" conspiracy theorists.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After a year of editing 9/11 articles, not without nerves, but I always tried to stay sane, stick to arguments and to elicit sane arguments from my opponents (which was often difficult), after a year, I was pronounced to have a Sockpuppet. This happened after a request voiced by an editor who was new in 9/11 topics at that time. I've never had a SockPuppet (editors who edited with me before would assure that's not my style). What's more important: please read clerks' opinions on that matter, their arguments which were "nails in the coffin", like this one:
 * "...an examination of SalvNaut's contribs shows a concentrated interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not beyond the scruples of some POV editors to use sock puppets to win an argument, and I suspect that's what happened here."
 * My past interest in the topic (thanks to which I knew that Steven Jones article was peer-reviewed for the purpose of the book by 4 PhD's - thus I concurred with reverting "peer-reviewed") was taken as a disfavoring argument to me. This was the only edit after which I was accused. Notice that this edit of mine had an explaining summary. Nevertheless, it was enough, for most parties, to connect me with a war-reverting user and to "prove"(!) my guilt. This is definitely what I'd call an atmosphere of mistrust, hence I throw this here as an evidence. From time perspective, I can say that that event influenced my progressing withdrawal from editing articles on Wikipedia. salVNaut (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to help the clerk resolve the addresses in question. I didn't mean to imply that I thought everyone were sockpuppets :( --Haemo (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
I've briefly protected this talk page due to edit warring. Please don't edit war, on arbitration case pages in particular. Further edit warring (or edit warring along the same lines elsewhere) will result in blocks. --bainer (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought it down to semi for a week per a request at WP:RFPP, this doesnt seem to be an edit war.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  05:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about Off-Site Canvassing
Aude has pointed out that Wowest and Oneismany have encouraged members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to edit WP. Can someone please direct my attention to the policy or guideline that discourages getting people involved? Meatpuppetry notwithstanding, surely one will often find oneself encouraging people that generally agree with one's own POV to contribute to an article of shared interest. For example, these days I normally DIScourage people from getting involved (regardless of their experitise, interests, or POV) because of the sorts of issues we are talking about here. But surely that sort of criticism has no bearing on whether or not my edits contribute to or disrupt the project. Perhaps we just need Aude to be a bit more specific about the nature of the canvassing. But it would be a bit odd to find that what one says about Wikipedia in other media, whether good or bad, whether encouraging or discouraging, came to determine one's influence as an editor. At that point WP pretty much stops being an open community.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:CANVAS? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Which part were thinking of specifically?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it probably qualifies as "disruptive canvassing". It meets all the requirements for such listed by the guideline: Mass posting, biased message, partisan audience, secret (not on Wikipedia). This does make sense; There were several strong-opinioned IP addresses with no previous edit history that joined the argument around February, when one blog was posted. Okiefromokla questions? 15:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But is it even canvassing? WP:CANVAS defines canvassing as "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". Aude's examples are all postings to 911blogger. None of Wowests posts are objectionable at all. And it's really only Oneismany's "PSST" post that looks like a call for meatpuppets, which is the only guideline I could think of that might apply: "Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." But all of these posts can reasonably be read as an attempt to recruit Wikipedians, not proxies for one's own position. If someone were to suggest to people on, say, the History and Philosophy of Science listserv that there's a real need for them to get involved in some articles related to that field and get them up to a reasonable academic standard, surely no one would call that "canvassing"?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you went to a ListServ which exclusively argued a minority position about the History and Philosophy of Science and argued that Wikipedia's articles on your subject were insufficiently in line with your minority position, and then encouraged other editors to get together and support your position then, yes, it might be considered inappropriate. --Haemo (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think anything like that is happening here. The key concern is not so much whether the off-wiki forum constitutes a minority or not but whether the recruitment is for the purpose of faking a consensus, i.e., giving the false impression of broad support for your position. That isn't happening here. Wowest and Oneismany are simply discussing their work on Wikipedia with their, for lack of a better word, peers. Just as I may discuss my experiences with the science studies community. If that sort of thing becomes inappropriate depending on whether you hold minority position you are in effect asking people who actually have peers (most notably: working academics) to stay the hell away from WP. There is actually reason to think that message is being heard.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, calling exclusively on people that share your POV to get involved is a much different thing then to encourage a group that's interested in (say) commercial aircraft to get involved. And in this case it's a huge difference. And I don't agree that Wowest's post are not problematic ("I think that it is important for us to clean house a little bit" us?). They are not merely discussing their work, they are calling for active involvement from a group that shares their POV. RxS (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being made is that he's not broadly requesting assistance &mdash; he's requesting assistance from a forum which he knows has a particular view, which he knows is not widely accepted, and which he knows to be sympathetic. Recruiting people whom you know to sympathetic to your view on a controversial issue is detrimental to the encyclopedia &mdash; especially when the position you hold is not widely held or accepted.  That's the guts here &mdash; experts, using their expert knowledge of what the accepted beliefs are, are not the same as people with strong POVs on a controversial issue.  If I went to a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory debunking site and did the same thing, would that be inappropriate?  Heck yes. --Haemo (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict: mainly a response to RxS) But that's exactly the sort of language I would expect from any peer group. "We've gotta go and clean up that article about the 747 ... it's a mess." Now, suppose, it's a group of Boeing enthusiasts who also happen not to like people emphasising the flaws in that particular kind of plane. I'm sure there's a school of thought in WP that would frown on any "let's get involved" type communication among such a group, but why bother? Fanatical interest in a subject matter is one source of contributors. When the call to get involved even includes a reminder about NPOV and RS ... come on! Go after the behaviour, not the motives.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Haemo) Morton's user page was essentially a conspiracy theory debunking site! I just don't think you can control the social dynamics of people getting together out of a shared intellectual (and even economic) interest. What you can do is insist on civil discussion in good faith and ban accounts that don't behave. To begin to monitor off-WP activities for "appropriateness" to the spirit of Wikipedia is, if you'll pardon it, not in the spirit of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't control them, for sure, and no one is going to waste scads of time "monitoring" anyone. But we can expect Wikipedia editors to, at the very least, refrain from requesting assistance from sympathetic parties.  For sure, there is a line here &mdash; when does "talking about Wikipedia disputes" become "asking for help in on-Wiki disputes"?  That's one to think about &mdash; and one to consider in light of some of the comments made. --Haemo (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple and I think you know the answer, if it's a group of 747 fans that's great. If it's a group of Boeing partisans then it's not so great. It's a bad thing, and we can do both. That is, we can focus on the behavior and try and discourage partisan call to actions. Fanatical interest in a subject is a great source of contributors, Fanatical interest laced with a strong POV isn't and there's no reason why we shouldn't try and discourage it. One of the biggest problems Wikipedia has is partisan POV pushing, all over the place. It's just wrong for editors with a strong POV to go off site and attempt to recruit like minded people to come involve themselves in the POV subject matter. Especially, as it often does, when it includes taking part in consensus forming discussions. RxS (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Haemo is right to say its worth thinking about, i.e., not simple at all. I think the difference between a 747-fan and Boeing-partisan (we're not talking about Boeing employees or lobbyists, of course) is anything but simple. And I think the idea of fanatical interest without a strong POV is simply contradictory. The point is: the most likely contributors to WP have a strong POV and will promote angles on WP articles off-WP that they shouldn't promote on-WP. Most editors know the difference. Identifying people's off-wiki interests is simply going in the wrong direction. As was said on checkuser issue: it's overkill. That is: it chases off more people than necessary. ArbCom has to be careful here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the idea of fanatical interest without a strong POV is contradictory, but thats not the distinction I'm talking about. A person can be (etymological quibbling aside) a fan without being a fanatic. And that's the difference I'm making. But I disagree with your main point, that the most likely contributors to WP have a strong POV. I see no evidence of that, and I doubt it's true. It's inconceivable to me that a partisan active here calling other partisans off site to come and help "clean house a little" would be anything but a bad idea. RxS (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most areas of human knowledge, probably all, include poitns of disagreement. It's not just evolution vs. intelligent design. But it's, say, punctuated equilibrium, yes or no? Now, most people who are qualified to edit the evolution article on the subject of punctuated equilibrium (I'm not one of them) will have a strong POV about it. (Most people who understand what it is have an opinion about whether or not its the right explanation.) This does not mean that they will push their POV. My main point is that most people who know something about something, and who want to share that knowledge by contributing their time for free to something like WP, have a strong POV about it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will respond more later when I am home. my wiki time is limited during the week. I have more to post during the weekend and to discuss this. Canvassing is one concern and considered together with other behavior and evidence it is a problem. Sites like 911blogger are for advocating the "truth"while wikipedia is not to be used for that purpose. --Aude (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I say, contributing to 911blogger and contributing to WP need not therefore be mutually exclusive activities. Wowest is actually pretty clear about that in the posts you link to. He notes that its a different context, that different rules apply. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your specific concerns about those posts.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oneismany is quite clear in asking that ONLY referenced factual material be added. This has to be taken into account. Also I don't see much of a difference between his actions and the canvassing by supporters of the official account. The main difference is that Oneismany did it on a website instead of mailing friends which could attract the wrong sort of conspiracy supporter. Wayne (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication of "canvassing by supporters of the official account", can you point me to it? RxS (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I often notice "come help me" invitations when I visit user talk pages. A couple of particularly prominant editors are very blatant at times with mentioning they need help to get the numbers to block edits. Is this not also canvassing? Wayne (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic at hand is off site canvassing. If you have a problem with established editors violating WP:Canvas feel free to bring it to AN/I or something. Or if it's being done in association with this case, add it to the evidence section (with specific examples). But this is about specific incidents off site and making vague accusations about unnamed editors here isn't very helpful. RxS (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wayne, for conspiracy supporters not familiar with Wikipedia, and some that should be familiar with Wikipedia, the definition of "referenced factual material" encompasses conspiracy theory websites, blogs, or a particular selection of facts to prove an originally researched conclusion. It's very hard to work with people who have strong POVs and are here to benefit the project, but solely to represent their view. That's the kind of people who are attracted when you canvas on 9/11 conspiracy theory blogs, and that's why this is so serious. These kinds of editors are the ones that create the major problem on 9/11 articles. Okiefromokla questions? 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another (probably not very hypothetical) example. An oxfordian posts to an oxfordian blog a call to go over an straighten out the Oxfordian theory and, of course, the related Shakespeare articles. The result is that more information is added. Others have to clean up a bit, wikify, etc. but the article gains detail and perhaps even balance. Why should "established editors" have any opionion about that blog post or that "kind of people"? Why even get into that issue. Oxfordians will obviously want to influence that article. Let them. It's a good faith contribution.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notice
Can someone please refactor this. I don't appreciate being called a "shill" or part of a "psy op" to ridicule or drive off editors. --Haemo (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this acceptable, or what? --Haemo (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable, and I also urge a clerk to refactor it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely up on the policy, but aren't you guys taking it unnecessarily personally? This anon is not naming anyone, nor even claiming to know who specifically is a shill in this case. While the language is a bit direct, it just makes one of the arguments in this arbitration, namely, the claim that there are editors who are actively, intentionally, and perhaps even for money, pushing the "government" line and thwarting the expression of alternative viewpoints with disruptions. It is up to ArbCom to decide whether or not a case for that can be made in the case of 9/11 articles and whether specific editors are engaged in that kind of activity (which I think we can all agree would be inappropriate if it actually occured). You aren't even being accused of it. But even if you were, it certainly can't be refactored in an ArbCom case on that issue. It would be a bit like refactoring accusations of being a "conspiracy theorist" because some people don't appreciate being called that. It begs the question.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting.... He names no one and mentions it is only a few editors. When I read it I only had two editors come to mind and only one of those has been involved in this arbitration (and neither of you are the one I thought of). On the other hand "we" are named and it is implied we are sockpuppets on the sole evidence that we sometimes edit on the same page. We get replies to some of our edits saying we are promoting crap and are loonies which is really no different to someone using the word "shill". Yet this is seen as acceptable. Can we please have one standard of behaviour that applies to "both" sides equally? Wayne (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, he's accusing "a few editors" of being complicit in mass murder. --Haemo (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No he isn't. He's accusing them of doing the government's bidding, whatever it may be hiding. Shills are not by definition complicit in what they are helping to hide. They are just annoying to those who are trying to uncover the truth. To take this as an accusation of "complicity in mass murder" (even after the fact) is yet another way of notching up the rhetoric. "What was that? Did you just accuse me of mass murder? 'Cause it sounded like..." Come on!--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors about hiding the government's involvement in 9/11 is complicity in the crime. If I help you cover up a murder, I'm complicit in that murder.  I can't believe anyone would defend or condone this kind of language &mdash; calling someone a shill for McDonalds would be across the line.  Calling them a shill, and guilty of trying to cover up a crime is totally unacceptable, yet here it is.  --Haemo (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if I told you I had committed the murder (indeed, only if I actually had committed the murder). A spokesperson for a politician who denies wrong doing is not complicit in the wrong doing. People who reflexively defend a government or a corporation against criticism are not complicit, they are just what are sometimes called "useful idiots". Shills are definitely in that category. I agree that making such an accusation as part of talk-page discussions of a content dispute is over the line. But so is "conspiracy crank", which is actually a more common term of abuse on these pages. But the question of whether or not groups of editors are engaged in shilliness or crankiness is exactly what this ArbCom case is about. I hope it will be determined that that question can't be settled, but that the accusations, whether of being a crank or a shill, could stop. If we refactor every such accusation here, we're unlikely to get anywhere.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So would you agree that unsubstantiated claims that someone is a sockpuppet is unacceptable? RxS (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ICB may not be a sockpuppet (I don't know) but to call Trav's claims to that effect "unsubstantiated" given this presentation of what he means is a bit silly. Like the "shill" question, this is part of the dispute and has to be considered. What's next? Ireneshusband calls for the refactoring of all "unsubstantiated" claims that he is a POV-pusher? These are accusations. This is the place for such accusations, especially when backed up with evidence.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How has he substantiated claims of ICB being a sock? As opposed to a returning veteran user, an IP who finally got an account, fast learner, careful user or some other reason? He hasn't. And while we're on the topic, where has he substantiated the claim that ICB knows policy better than the majority of Wikipedians? Or knows acronmyms that 99% of editors don't know? No, he hasn't shown anything at all that would discriminate ICB as a sock as opposed to any other type of new account that is familiar with Wikipedia. Nor has he identified who he is a sock of. No, this is just a smear plain and simple. Not to mention another assumption of bad faith. RxS (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we mean different things by "substantiated". You mean something like "proof". A claim is not unsubstantiated if it is false, it is unsubstantiated if no evidence is offered for it. ICB, in answering the charges, has explicitly denied being an returning user, by the way. But that is clearly one of the possibilities Trav originally allowed for when presenting his case. The narrow range of tasks that ICB seems to be interested in, however (if Trav is right about that), suggests that IF he is also an experienced user THEN he is still also working through his old account as well (maintaining the articles he's primarily interested in). Trav is making a case, he is not smearing. He may be wrong, but this is the right forum to present his case in. On your argument an accusation of murder in a courtroom investigating that murder would be considered a smear.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take your courtroom analogy. His sock accusation is the equivalent of someone accusing Brad of murdering Becky because he hasn't seen Becky around in a while. There's lot's of reasons Becky could be missing other than murder and no one would say that he's substantiated his accusation. Now that's stretching the analogy pretty far but it illustrates the point. But, the bottom line here is that it's pretty obvious to me that it's not a serious claim (there's a way other than Arbcom to report suspected socks, AN/I for most cases). And as it's not a serious claim, and since it's been made in the middle of an Arbcom case, I can only imagine that it's meant as a smear. If he is serious, he should bring it to AN/I. There's an old LBJ quote that applies here I think. It's not appropriate for general conversation, but the last part is "yes I know he doesn't, but let's make him deny it". Extra points for knowing what the accusation was, now that's a dirty trick :) RxS (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say Trav is offering much more than your Someone, and since the analogy to the "murder" is disruption of the 9/11 articles there IS, so to speak, a body. The question is, Who dunnit? Who's responsible for the disruption, the battleground atmosphere? Trav is providing evidence to help ArbCom decide that question. If ICB really is a sock of an experienced user, then that is a relevant part of this case.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If he is and he's serious, then why is he making the accusation here rather than somewhere (WP:AN/I, WP:CHU) that will actually make a determination if ICB is a sock or not? Arbcom isn't going to make a determination of that claim, so it'll just sit here. If he's more interested in the accusation then the truth then it's just an attempt to smear. We're not going to agree on that so I don't know what to say. It's too bad. RxS (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He was very quick to move my question about his accusation from his talk page to here, but to date he has not addressed my question on this point. I would be happy to discuss it if he would follow up as he suggested he would. ~ S0CO ( talk 22:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why he hasn't take it somewhere else. I don't know how checkuser works: is possible to carry out if you only have the suspected sock account? I.e., is it possible to use checkuser to find the experienced user's account with no idea of where to begin? Anyway, you're right, I don't see it as a smear but as a legitimate part of the case. I could of course be wrong. But so far the clerks seem to agree with me.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically checkuser will associate accounts with IPs, so it would list the accounts that edited from a particular IP. So you wouldn't need to know what the other account is for it to work. You just have to ask at WP:CHU, if they think it's a legitimate request they'll run one. Easy. As to the clerking here, well I guess that's another thing we'll have to disagree about. Referring to someone as "sockpuppet [username]" without any proof is not civil and by it's very nature a personal attack. RxS (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wayne, you have often claimed someone is calling someone a "looney" or "promoting crap", and you have also claimed this in your evidence without providing diffs. Can you please point out this incivility? I have also asked you to provide evidence on your user talk page regarding another claim you made here, but you've seemed to ignored it. Okiefromokla questions? 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is difficult for me to track down diffs as it takes around 5 minutes to load a single diff when I find it (I have a 28.8 kbps dialup that slows dramatically when the server is busy). "looney" and "promoting crap" have both been used by MONGO and Morton devonshire in the past and similar has been expressed several times by others in debates over the 911 naming. You should be able to find it yourselves. Wayne (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to understand
Moved from User talk:Travb by Travb

On the Evidence page, you accuse User:Ice Cold Beer of being a sockpuppet of an unidentified "more experienced user," on the basis that he used advanced acronyms early on. I'm trying to understand how this can be considered irrefutable evidence of being a sockpuppet. I know that I myself edited as an IP for several months in order to "learn the ropes" before I signed up for an account of my own. My first edit as Jc-S0CO included the term "POV" in the edit summary, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. In my opinion, it's equally possible that instead of being a sock ICB did something similar to what I did so people would not look back through his edit history in the "wikinoob" stage for signs of wrongdoing. Everyone goes through a trial phase in the beginning where they're feeling out if they want to become a regular contributor. Considering this, I don't see how his early edits can be considered evidence of wrongdoing, especially when no "experienced user" is identified as the alleged creator of this purported sock account. ~ S0CO ( talk 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also debate the assertion that people with approximately 1000 edits are in any sense "new users". --Haemo (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He's also referring to him as "sockpuppet Ice Cold Beer". That's totally unsubstantiated and inappropriate. Instead of throwing out a bunch of acronyms about civility and personal attacks, can a clerk refactor, remove or whatever clerks do? Thanks. RxS (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Desysop foul-up
Moved from User talk:Travb by Travb

Before you contact the clerks to ban me as you say you intend to do, I'd like to point out that I re-added the section after you deleted it. Perhaps you did so accidentally, but I thought it was your intention and reposted it with what I thought was an appropriate note. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding, but in any case I don't recall "threatening" you at any time. ~ S0CO ( talk 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, accidents happen. :) Trav (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)